Forced to Be Gay

To the world, homosexuality is more than an orientation; it’s an identity. Being gay is like being black or vegan or republican. It’s part of your persona. Something to accept, embrace and celebrate. Coming out means becoming part of a community—complete with flags, parades and flashy bumper stickers. To the person who experiences same-sex attraction, the world says you’re gay. Now assume your identity. Be who you are.

Jesus says there’s another way.

See, Christianity has never been about being who you are. On the contrary, Jesus says, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” (Matthew 16:24-25). Far from being who we are, Christ calls us to be who we’re not. Better yet, to be who we’re becoming.

Gay-rights activists will say we’re in denial. Exactly! But it’s not the kind that pretends homosexual desires don’t exist. It’s the kind that says no to that which does not align with God’s will, and yes to the superior pleasure of knowing, loving and following Jesus. That’s the gospel in action, and it’s not just for those who struggle with same-sex desires. It’s the story of every Christian. We strive to be less like ourselves, more like Christ.

True, there are some things we can’t choose. Sexual orientation is probably one of them. What we can choose—and the Bible is clear—is our identity. So while it’s OK to acknowledge our sins, we must never define ourselves by them; we must never adopt them as “who we are.” We are not our struggles. For the believer, it’s truer to say, “I’m a Christian who struggles with same-sex attraction” than to say, “I’m gay.” Who cares if it’s a mouthful? It’s true! Like the Apostle Paul, we must endeavor to identify only with Christ:

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life that I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20)

To those who experience same-sex attraction: the world wants to force you to be gay, claiming the only alternative to adopting a homosexual identity is a life of unhappiness and warped self-perception. Don’t believe the lies. There’s freedom in the gospel that allows us to be better than who we are—the freedom to be found in Christ.

About Bryan

Bryan has a master's degree in English, a full-time job in public relations, and the gift of joyful singleness. He leads worship at his church in Utah and enjoys traveling, singing, playing games, hiking, and eating out.

34 Comments

Leave your reply.

Its interesting that many, maybe most homosexual men do at some point experiment with heterosexuality, and when they do the world continues to assume that they’re actually gay. Contrast that with the straight man who at a point in his life experiments with homosexuality. He is proclaimed gay from the moment he begins to be attracted to the same sex. In an effort to be as accepting as possible, the left (including the “Christian” left) has made homosexuality the dominant orientation. The world will always try to make you a slave to darkness.

I don’t think acceptance inherently means dominance. I haven’t personally heard any left leaning political group say homosexuality is the dominant orientation. In fact, the Left’s talking points on this subject are rooted in protecting the LGBT population because it’s a minority group.

We’re focusing on a demographic that represents a single digit percentage (maybe 10 percent) of our population. San Francisco, the so-called LGBT capital of America, has a LGBT community of just 15 percent.

“Being gay is like being black or vegan or republican.”
You can choose what to eat and choose how to vote, but you can’t choose your race. Or your sexual orientation.

“To those who experience same-sex attraction: the world wants to force you to be gay, claiming the only alternative to adopting a homosexual identity is a life of unhappiness and warped self-perception.”

The “unhappiness and warped self-perception” many Christian gays feel comes largely from ignorant posts like this one. What “freedom” will they find in the gospels under your definition? The freedom of celibacy and the freedom to not experience the joy of a life-long partner?

“For the believer, it’s truer to say, ‘I’m a Christian who struggles with same-sex attraction’ than to say, ‘I’m gay.’”

For blog writers like you, it’s truer to say “I’m a Christian who believes in marginalizing gay people instead of recognizing that the overriding message of Jesus was love,” than to say “I’m a Christian blogger.”

Hi Robert,
In reading your reply I can’t help but feel like you missed the point. Bryan’s point wasn’t that you could choose who you’re attracted to and it certainly wasn’t to bash those who are attracted homosexually. Rather the point was what are we going to base our identity on. If you’re attracted to the same sex are you going to choose to identify as being gay? If you only eat vegetables do you choose to identify yourself as a vegetarian or vegan? Bryan’s point is that if we are in Christ then he is our only identity and that identity requires – by Jesus’ own statements – that we die to ourselves and any other identity we choose.

As far as what you sarcastically referred to as the “freedom of celibacy and the freedom to not experience the joy of a life-long partner” do you think Paul or Jesus considered himself to be less satisfied or fulfilled because of a lack of a life-long partner or because of the “shackles” of celibacy? Rather I think your statement reveals your heart. If a relationship is our god (homo or heterosexual) then we will always find ways to justify it and embrace our sin.

I would agree with you though that Jesus’ overriding message was one of love. However, love still calls out sin. It just isn’t a jerk when it does it. Arguably one of Jesus’ most loving conversations recorded in the Bible is his conversation with the woman at the well in John 4. I encourage you to read it if you haven’t already. There Jesus lovingly tells her the truth of who he is and how she can be truly fulfilled. He then gently but firmly points out her sin by prophetically revealing her sinful relationships. Love means calling each other out and calling us back to God’s word and way.

I don’t want to start a war so I’ll let you have the opportunity for the last word

I don’t want to start a war either. I usually steer clear of blogs about homosexuals written by heterosexuals telling homosexuals how to think and feel, or in this case, what to base their identity on. And my comment about celibacy does indeed “reveal my heart.”

I’ll let Peter Gomes have the last word. He was the highly respected Plummer Professor of Christian Morals at Harvard College where he was minister of the Memorial Church from 1974 until he died in Feb. 2011. He was also a benediction speaker at the Reagan inauguration and inaugural sermon presenter for President Bush.

“No credible case against homosexuals or homosexuality can be made from the Bible unless one chooses to read scripture in a way that simply sustains the existing prejudice against homosexuality and homosexuals. The combination of ignorance and prejudice under the guise of morality makes the religious community, and its abuse of scripture in this regard, itself morally culpable.”—The Good Book

Given some 2,000 years of church history it probably comes as no surprise that Christians have agreed almost unanimously that homosexuality is a sin. What may come as a surprise to you, however, is that there are people with homosexual orientations who believe the same thing—and their lives reflect it. They seek God’s will above their same-sex desires, either by pursuing holiness through heterosexual marriage, or pursuing holiness through singleness. It’s a testament to the life-changing, joy-giving, all-satisfying love of Jesus. Something that will baffle the world, to be sure. I say let’s baffle to the glory of God.

It’s not like the church was stagnant for 2,000 years. The church is always evolving. Think slavery: we look back at those debates over the biblical nature of slavery with shame as a country.

We’ll see how the church looks in ten years on the topic of homosexuality. I’m looking forward to a bright future for our LGBTQ brothers and sisters, a future where a sham marriage or “pursuing holiness through singleness” are not their only options.

Although you do have Chuck Norris on your side of the debate, so who knows?

No credible case against homosexuals or homosexuality can be made from the Bible unless one chooses to read scripture in a way that simply sustains the existing prejudice against homosexuality and homosexuals…

Okay, this is a purely emotional statement, made to illicit a response. It is an ignorant comment that betrays absolutely no understanding of not only the Bible, but the historical and sociological context in which the Bible was birthed. These are the kinds of things that upset me: unfounded remarks made with no understanding or care for what is being said. No credible case can be made? I will tell you this, he has likewise made no credible case for his point. Simply to say something is so-regardless of what chair you hold at a prestigious college-does not make it so. This goes both ways!

If we are going to say that the Bible make a case for or against something, we must be prepared to make an exegetical argument. This is my pet peeve, and I try to stand by this myself (I cannot help this; I am trained to do this).

So all of this to say, if we are going to use the Bible (as Christians; I do not expect non-Christian to the same nor hold them to this), please use it in a way that is sensitive to its culture, language, and history. This honor our Lord.

Robert…..there is no question the Bible defines homosexuality as sin. But, I have seen arguements in the gay community for saying the Bible is b*llsh*t and for saying the Bible isn’t clear on it being sin. You can’t have it both ways. The gay community is a house divided, some trying to be Christians and justifying homosexuality and the others trashing Christianity. It’s very sad

When alledged Christians start calling people “ignorant” because their viewpoint is different than said person, that Christian loses all credibility. The love cannot be seen using the degrading tactic of abasing another’s beliefs. This article is an attempt at shaming, bashing and fear mongering homosexuals into celibacy and denying their core identity. When you ask the same sacrifice of self of heterosexual people, then you will have a valid argument for the case of celibacy, self denial, etc. You exhort to be Christlike and mention his celibacy, so if it applies to homosexuality then it applies equally to heterosexuality. Equally. You cannot measure it out to one segment only. If you do, you negate your own arguments as to why gays cannot be sexual, committed partners but straight people can.

You can choose what to eat and choose how to vote, but you can’t choose your race. Or your sexual orientation.

When you say you do not choose your sexual orientation, you may be right. We all agree that a person is born with the skin color they have, there is nothing they can do to hide the fact that they are what they are (I will even grant your argument that those who are gay are born that way and cannot help their desires). But the main difference between race and sexuality is this: you can choose to not act on sexual desires, be they straight, gay, etc. You cannot choose to stop being a color or race. There is no difference between a straight person and gay person when it comes to acting out desires. That is the main difference, and that is what separates the civil rights movement from the so-called gay rights movement. If we are granting special classification for people you are gay (be it born that way or not), then we have no reason whatsoever to not grant the same for any other group that wants to act on their desires. Here I think of polygamy, bestiality, and so on and so forth. We are now giving people open season to act on desires, with the protection of “civil rights.”

The “unhappiness and warped self-perception” many Christian gays feel comes largely from ignorant posts like this one. What “freedom” will they find in the gospels under your definition? The freedom of celibacy and the freedom to not experience the joy of a life-long partner?

Are we defining “freedom” as antinomianism? That for sure is not biblical, and I hope we all agree. Is freedom the loosing of the moral chains in order to live how we feel we should, regardless of man’s or God’s law? Freedom, biblical freedom, is not a freedom to live how one chooses. As Paul says we are either a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness. If one was a thief before his conversion, once he is converted he is no longer “free” to act on his desires to steal, and these desires to steal are just as real and string as sexual desires. Another example would be for a married person to act on the desire to commit adultery. Is he free to do what he chooses, simply because he feels the need to act on these desires? How would the offended spouse react to such a betrayal? The point of this is that biblical freedom is not a freedom to do what one feels is right or what one desires. Jesus defines freedom in such terms as “denying oneself.” This is most certainly not the freedom the world portrays, a point which Bryan is making. So I ask, Is Bryan being ignorant or Biblical in his approach to these important topics?

For blog writers like you, it’s truer to say “I’m a Christian who believes in marginalizing gay people instead of recognizing that the overriding message of Jesus was love,” than to say “I’m a Christian blogger.”

This is in no way fair Robert. Was not Jesus the same person who likewise said “Depart from me…?” True, Jesus did proclaim a message of love and grace, accepting all who come to him. It is equally true that the Church could learn a lot from our Lord in how to treat others the way he did. But it is also equally important to recognize that Jesus himself also was very adamant that those who are wishing to come to him must repent and turn from sin. All sin! It is clear that homosexuality was considered a sin in both the OT and NT. It is also clear that murder, lust, lying, and so on were also sin, and must be dropped at the door of grace in order to find forgiveness and grace. In all do respect, it is far easier to say Jesus is love and overlook sin in all its manifestations than it is to tell the person we care about that sin will keep them from salvation and Christ’s love. So it comes back to this very fundamental question, one which you allude to: What is a Christian and what is the Gospel which he must proclaim?

In closing, just think about the logic of the arguments that are being put forward to support gay rights and marriage. That is my main concern in all of this; I have no dog in this fight personally; I know many who are openly gay and those who are in the closest, both Christians and non-Christians. You will not see from me a personal attack on any person who is gay. But I will vehemently attack an “argument, idea, or logic” that is inconsistent and full of holes. Let’s steer away from subjectivity and focus on the arguments that are being brought forward by both sides. It is only here that we can accomplish anything, and it is here where civility resides.

Thanks for this insight, Bryan. I’m reminded of Paul’s exposition regarding life in the Spirit in Romans 7 and 8. To quickly summarize, “For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their mind on the things of the Spirit” Romans 8:5. We choose whether we set our minds and base our actions on worldly or Godly things, which then guides how we answer the ultimate question of identity: “Who are you?”

In what way? I will not let you off the hook with a reference to a quote. 🙂

In what way is my logic wrong? This is not something that I throw out there for the sake of doing so, it is a logical deduction from the arguments that are being used. What makes someone who has desires for the same-sex and different than one who desires the opposite? Do same-sex partners love with a different kind of love than opposite-sex partners? Is there a fundamentally different attraction and intimacy between the two? If we can agree that both have similar desires for love, intimacy, attraction, etc. then my logic holds true. At the bottom of this all is desires being acted on. No doubt those who desire to have multiple wives share the same desires as the one who is gay or straight. This all comes down to acting on desires. That is what makes this diametrically different than race or gender for that matter.

All I am saying is this: the argument for gay marriage (right to love whom I want, to share a life with whom I love) is flawed and can easily be usurped and taken hostage by any group lobbying for the right to love whom they want. I am not comparing one group morally to the other, I am just saying that as a society we need to be very careful with how we frame our rhetoric for or against something, or it will come back to bite us in the ass! And this is bad for us all. The rhetoric for gay rights is flawed.

Against my better judgment, I am going to spend the next 20 minutes of my life answering this.

“In what way is my logic wrong? This is not something that I throw out there for the sake of doing so, it is a logical deduction from the arguments that are being used.”

First off, a major component of your “logic” places homosexuals with polygamists and people who have sex with animals in the same boat. I asked that you reread the quote above as it clearly states that you sustain “the existing prejudice against homosexuality and homosexuals.” The fact that you find it morally equivalent to compare the desire for gay sex and the desire for sex with a horse clearly shows your personal aversion to homosexual relationships. A lot of fundamentalists also like to equate homosexuality with pedophilia. This is disgusting and adds nothing but ignorance to the conversation. Gay relationships involve two consenting individuals, while pedophilia involves child rape and bestiality involves, well, someone sexing an animal. Do you really feel that is next on the liberal agenda? Animal sex? Sex with children? Get real.

“What makes someone who has desires for the same-sex and different than one who desires the opposite?”

Nothing.

“Do same-sex partners love with a different kind of love than opposite-sex partners?”

Nope.

“Is there a fundamentally different attraction and intimacy between the two?”

Nope.

“If we can agree that both have similar desires for love, intimacy, attraction, etc. then my logic holds true. No doubt those who desire to have multiple wives share the same desires as the one who is gay or straight. This all comes down to acting on desires.”

We’ve determined that your logic is flawed by your personal bias. But we do agree that the desire of homosexuals, “for love, intimacy, attraction, etc.” is the same as heterosexual desires.

“All I am saying is this: the argument for gay marriage (right to love whom I want, to share a life with whom I love) is flawed and can easily be usurped and taken hostage by any group lobbying for the right to love whom they want.”

That is an absurd statement on many levels. No one would take seriously any of the groups you have proposed in any of your arguments. It was offensive that you equated the groups that you have with homosexuals; it is laughable that any of the groups you describe would gain any credence in a serious debate about rights. I’m sure I could Google to find some fringe groups fighting for the equal rights of people that like to have sex with animals, but I’ve already wasted 15 minutes responding to this.

“I am not comparing one group morally to the other,”

Yes, you in fact, are.

“I am just saying that as a society we need to be very careful with how we frame our rhetoric for or against something,”

This whole blog post thread is the least “careful” framing of rhetoric I have read in a long time.

The form of logic Cliff used was “reductio ad absurdum.” I can rephrase his argument this way: “Wait, we all agree bestiality is unhealthy, don’t we? So if the argument you use in favor of homosexuality would work equally well as an argument for bestiality, then doesn’t that show you’re using an invalid argument?”

This is a classic form of reasoning. If you make an argument that seems logical, but your same argument could also be used to “prove” something that we all agree is false, then we should all agree your argument was not completely logical after all.

Assuming that the pro-gay position is the true position, here are three ways you could refute Cliff:
1) Prove that your pro-gay arguments actually would not work as arguments in favor of bestiality.
2) Come up with new, different pro-gay arguments–new ones that would not work as arguments in favor of bestiality.
3) Come out in favor of bestiality.

But if the pro-gay position is a false position, I don’t think you should use any of those three strategies. Those strategies will help people see the truth. If your position is false, then you don’t want that! You want people deceived.

So, if the pro-gay position is false, I think your best strategy is to misrepresent Cliff. Cliff’s argument was, if homosexuality is NOT equivalent to bestiality yet pro-homosexuality rhetoric IS equivalent to pro-bestiality rhetoric, then the rhetoric must be flawed.

If you want to win this argument without being right, you should act as though Cliff said, “Homosexuality IS equivalent to bestiality.” That way, you can make Cliff out to be a bad person! Then hopefully no one will listen to his arguments even if he’s right.

(I don’t usually use sarcasm in an argument; it’s usually too pushy. I think it’s a proportionate response in this case.)

The way you hold homosexuality under a microscope like a foreign specimen to be examined makes it incredibly hard for me to believe that you have any family members or friends you hang out with on a regular basis who are gay. This isn’t a theory or a concept for you, a heterosexual male, to sit back and pick apart, but something that involves real people.

This is PHENOMENAL! I’m not sure how I found your blog (click after click after click, ya know the drill), but you are very thought-provoking. In regards to this post, this is one of the best ways I have ever heard the concept of homosexuality and the rise above it explained. Thank you.

After re-reading my comment, I shouldn’t have phrased it as “the rise above it.” That sounds extremely demeaning, and I didn’t mean it that way. I completely agree that homosexuality is a way of life that needs to be treated with absolute respect, because after all, they are real people too. But at the same time, I also think it is not a way of life that God intended. But since it exists, and it is real, homosexuality should open our eyes to being more open-minded and loving. I don’t know God’s plans or intentions, but I do believe in respecting and treating all people the same. 🙂 So by my poorly-phrased comment above, I don’t mean the rise above “homosexuality” itself, but the rise above people being close-minded and condescending towards it. So if I could rephrase – the rise above judgments towards them. Anyway, Bryan, thank you for this post. I really enjoyed it! You have a bright mind.

I stumbled to this site…so here goes…there will always be dilemmas in what LOVE is and who should or can love who, what’s allowed and what’s not. I am not a Christian, but I rather like Jesus (who was an embodiment of the Christy as any of us can/could be.) His values got twisted down through the ages – but true glimpses can still be felt. Having dealt with what love is most of my life and spending some time alone and celibate (not for any moral reason, btw) I see more and more that love is a state of being more than an experience. You either have it internally and exude it, or you’re after it from someone else. But is that really love? Most 1-1 relationships (gay or straight) I know are riddled with deceit and bullshit. That’s why I’m obtaining currently. That is NOT love. Or relating. The bigger question, to me, is finding love first, then sharing it from a real place. Not grabbing or demanding or imploring. I mean, who CAN’T manage that? That is most of what’s out there. LOVE yourself. Cultivate that and see what happens. And screw what anyone says about how you’re living. I mean, really? Does that matter? What are you trying to live up to or prove. Do your thing and the rest be damned (or at least, be let alone.)

This article is propaganda lies. To compare being gay to being vegan or republican is idiocy. People do NOT choose to be gay. Stop judging and condemning people!! There are many gay Christians and many do not believe it is a sin. “Same sex attraction” is part of being gay…that’s insane to say its not gay. This propaganda only marginalized gay people. It creates guilt and self hate…all lies. The true struggle is not being gay…it is the desire to be accepted exactly as God creates us. When will you people get it…you are trying to destroy people…you cannot make some in gay just as you cannot make someone in-African American. What planet are you people from…do you have a conscience…are you even human? I have a friend that read this struggling with his own acceptance…and now the self hate is deeper…do you want people to kill themselves? For what? So you can feel better about your miserable life. I will defend him to the end…when I came to acceptance, I became free. I am gay and glad God made me this way. Destroy your own lives and let others be free and happy…I just don’t get your complete denial and small minds.